Loading...
2018-11-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2018 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Adopt Agenda 3. Approval of the October 23, 2018 regular meeting minutes 4. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update a. Re-schedule the Public Hearing - tabled from the October 23, 2018 meeting - to a future meeting date (t/b/d) 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2018-25: Lot Split Application Property located at 1925 Victoria Road South (Steve Norton –Applicant / Steven Povolny – Owner) b. Case No. 2018-26: Lot Split & Lot Combination Application Un-Addressed Property located between 555 & 561 Hiawatha Avenue (Derek & Julie Cooper – Applicant/Owner) 6. New / Unfinished Business a. Preliminary information and discussion to allow “Self-Storage” or similar uses in the commercial and industrial districts (City staff) b. Revised Public Hearing Guidelines (motion to approve) 7. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 8. Adjourn Meeting Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 25, 2018 Minutes and acknowledgement of the written comments submitted at the September 25, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Open House and additional emails for the public record COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE WRITTEN COMMENTS AND ADDITIONAL EMAILS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Chair Field noted that at the September 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, in a public hearing capacity, they had completed discussion on several chapters of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the current meeting was to continue said discussion, starting with Chapter 7. He then requested Planning Consultant Phil Carlson from Stantec to highlight some of the items in those chapters and the maps that, in the current reiteration, are still a work in process. Planning Consultant Phil Carlson from Stantec explained that this was a continuation of a discussion of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, a work in progress. This process has been going for a couple of years. There have been parts of the plan that were discussed in detail at previous meetings and chapters that have been developed with the help of citizens, city staff, and the consultants. Mr. Carlson believed the Natural Resources Plan, and the Resilience Plan to follow, to be an excellent example of grass roots work in the community; citizens taking ownership of issues they felt were important, to take the initiative, and to develop the information and bring their interest to October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 13 this. However, again this is a work in process. The Planning Commission had the benefit of a year and a half of work to put together the previous chapters; whereas these were pulled together in a much shorter period of time. Understandably, the Commission will want to review them and refine as appropriate. Nevertheless, they represent an important part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Early on, the natural setting of Mendota Heights was one of the most im portant issues that came out in the discussion; something that folks value highly and want to make sure is passed on to future generations. In response to the reference to maps mentioned by Chair Field, Mr. Carlson noted that the Comprehensive Plan is a document with numerous goals, policies, maps, statistics, etc. Sometimes, just the land use map is the poster for the land use plan. This is unfair because there is a lot more to it; many more layers of information and city policy that goes into it. Nevertheless, it is a way of representing some of the important issues in the community. So there has been significant discussion of some of the changes that were discussed by the Planning Commission over the months to take two neighborhoods in the city that have significantly smaller lot sizes and create a new Comprehensive Plan designations for them – what has been called LR-5 and LR-9 in the northeast part of the city and in Friendly Hills. That has been the source of some strong discussion. A map has been prepared showing what the land use plan might look like without those designations; reverting to the previous plan that has been in effect for many years, that has one single-family, one low density designation. This is by no means the final draft of the plan; it is only a draft to show what it might look like without the two new designations. This tonight is a continuation of the public hearing that occurred last month and a joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop more recently. City staff has been wo rking to put together a compilation of what potential changes and discussions came out of that and the drafts as they have evolved. This is a continuation of the work the Planning Commission has done to welcome discussion of the plan. Chair Field stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council had a joint meeting on October 15, 2018 and this draft of the proposed Future Land Use was the product of that discussion; while not a public meeting the public was welcome to attend. If residents have comments to make on the proposed plan, that would certainly be in order this evening. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that a few months ago, there was some interested residents and citizens who were very concerned about the Natural Resources Plan and wanted a very strong section or dedication to this natural resource. A citizen’s advisory committee was formed with people very interested in what the natural resources do for the community, in an effort to help protect and preserve those. The committee started with a great kick-off meeting and eventually they pared it down to be reviewed by their editorial board; which consisted of members from the original citizen’s advisory committee. This editorial board created this new Chapter 7: Natural Resources Plan. Chair Field announced the re-opening of the previously tabled public hearing on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 13 Don Selg, 867 Bluebill Drive, lives in the Rogers Lake Development and has been there for 45 years. He expressed his urgency and concern he had regarding what is what is going on, not just in Mendota Heights but on a global level. The ozone layer has depleted approximately 5% between 1970 and 1998. The protocol, or global agreement, to discontinue use of CFC’s has resulted in the ozone declining another 0.5%. There is still a definite sense of urgency to address this. He continued by discussing the UV index. During the 1970’s and 1980’s it was fairly stable. That increased by 9% and has stabilized since the mid-1990’s; however, it is still a definite issue. There is still a hole in the ozone, which is what is causing the issue. Mr. Selg noted that this last season, in the Twin Cities area, there were record breaking heat temperature for the longest duration, with daily temperatures staying above 70 degrees. The average percent increase, since air conditioning was first implemented, was 5%. So the area has had a very significant summer with respect to the cooling degree days and the amount of heat that was experienced. Pollution is the greatest environmental risk to human health, estimated to be the cause of 4.3 million premature deaths every year from ambient outdoor pollution. The annual death rate has now decreased by 12% since 1990; so it has gotten better. The thought is that we have to consider that, from a human life standpoint. The UN Environmental Consulate has come out and said that the next 20 years is going to be significant on human life – but it is already happening. In regards to annual deforestation, the rain forest stores massive amounts of carbon, which serve as carbon sinks – absorbing carbon released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. When forests are cut down, just the opposite happens. They release that carbon back into the atmosphere. That accounts for 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, coming from felling the world’s forests. This is significant, especially when considering the amount of oxygen that they supply. This loss of oxygen is needed for the air we breathe and to replenish the ozone layer. 18% of the world tree population is utilized or lost each year; including those lost to wild fires. The following recommendations were made by Mr. Selg to rectify these issues here in Mendota Heights:  If the Par 3 golf course, or the golf course in Eagan, were to shut down for any reason, they be converted into solar panel farms covering the fairways and the greens, surrounded by forests with park-like functions like walking and bicycle trails  Plant numerous trees in the area to replace the on es removed for development, destroyed by wild fires, or lost to disease; and then take care of those trees to ensure they flourish Given the topics being covered, the country also needs a new breakthrough technology to replace the internal combustion engine. The solar energy can provide electric power and the electric car could replace the internal combustion engine as well. Heat is not needed to charge the batteries of electric vehicles. There is a limit on how much solar power we can generate. The internal combustion engine has been in place for over 100 years. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 13 Mr. Selg has experience upgrading engine systems to meet EPA standards. The government is not necessarily going to drive this fast enough; they are spelling out requirements going out 10 – 20 years in the future, which is not fast enough – we have to make it happen faster. The degree of urgency and the need for action on these items is high. Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane, was one of the editors of the Natural Resource document, along with many others who contributed much more to the document than she did. It is meant to be encompassing and inspirational. If it looks difficult and challenging – it should be. With the exception of the Commissions’ good edits and title change, she would encourage them to accept the Resources Document as is. This is meant to be a vision for Mendota Heights as they focus on the value of the beauty of the city and the open spaces, it is critical that they aim very high. They borrowed from other very successful natural resources plans in other cities to create this document and, if this could be moved forward and take the next steps of getting that natural resources management plan, she believed that the city would be a leader in protecting the green spaces. Debra Ost, lives in Bridgeview Shores near the corner of Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road and has been a resident of Mendota Heights for 32 years. She expressed her appreciation for all of the hard work on this; however, she agrees with Mr. Selg regarding a sense of urgency. What she sees lacking in the Comprehensive Plan is outcomes. There is a lot of “establish, investigate, study, encourage”, and that sort of language but this is for 2040, which is 23 years from now. She did not believe that there is enough time to study; there has to be a little bit of study but something needs to start happening. She would like to see this plan be more action oriented; have a plan that has a list of accomplishments to be reached by a certain date. Councilmember Noonan asked what sort of outcomes would Ms. Ost challenge the Commission to pay attention to, specific areas where she would like to see outcomes specified. Ms. Ost replied that in the time she has been living in Bridgeview Shores, she has seen the quality of Pagel Pond go downhill. Also, the smell on Huber Drive from the pond there is horrible. It didn’t used to be like that. She would like to see the city enforce and not allow residents to put their fertilizer into the ponds; she would like to see improvements in the water quality; she would to see something being done rather than just talking about it. Brian Aukema, 707 Evergreen Knolls, moved to Mendota Heights with his wife and two boys in 2010 when he accepted a faculty position at the University of Minnesota. He received a lot of well- meaning advice from colleagues on where to live close to the St. Paul Campus. He has a statistics degree and is typically driven by data; therefore, he put together as much data as he could and built a statistical model on the best place to live. With all of the data he input, he came to the conclusion that, out of 110 suburbs in the Twin Cities Metro Area, Mendota Heights is the best place to live. He and his family are very happy here. In his job at the Univ. of Minnesota, he has the privilege of advising municipalities, cities, states, and countries on science-based solutions for managing their natural resources; especially around invasive threats to forests. He often starts by asking a city if they have a plan. He has heard some concerns here that perhaps the document under review may be overly prescriptive or too ambitious; October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 13 however, he did not share those concerns as this is a guiding document for the city for the next few decades. He expressed his support for the Comprehensive Plan. He also thanked Mr. Benetti and members of the Commission for providing this space for citizens with interest and expertise in city planning and natural resource management to provide some guidance for this document. He encouraged the adoption of these chapters to keep Mendota Heights the best place to live. Beth Pearlman, 1773 Diane Road, also expressed her appreciation for having this hearing and for listening to the citizens and letting them contribute to this document. She believes there is a dual track here:  A document with vision – the city needs to have a general vision, goals, mission statement of where they want to end up. Far reaching and visionary are important aspects of this document; setting goals that are too small will not solve this huge problem that affects everyone and their children  Implementation and urgency – one of the provisions in this is to make sure there is a way forward with a Commission that would actually take up the implementation and th e urgency of what has to be done more tactically as well as strategically. This document has both paths, the strategic path and the path to tactics. She encouraged adoption of the plan as is it a broad, visionary, and far reaching document. Many have read this and smarter people than her have contributed to it. The adoption of this document, even though it is a long-range thing, does not preclude the city from taking immediate and important action. Ms. Pearlman expressed her appreciation to the residents who worked on this document. She then asked the Commission if they had any questions about things in the document that they felt were inappropriate, too much, too little, way out of line, or anything they had issues with. Commissioner Noonan replied that he had some issues with respect – the document is to guide the efforts of Mendota Heights. Certain of the priorities speak to compelling others to do action or take on responsibilities. In light in going through and hearing what’s said; the goals are fine, it is the priorities where the rubber hits the road, which would ultimately provide some of the direction to go to that tactical plan. He believed there were things that do not necessarily need to be said because they cannot be controlled. For example, the very first speaker spoke about four big picture issues under Resiliency. He believed everyone was sensitive and are concerned about them; however, the question is, what can we do about it. In this small corner of the world, with approximately 11,000 people, what can be done about ozone depletion? These are global issues that need to be tackled. The Commission would like to hear what is said and then reflect on that in light of what is written on paper. Commissioner Toth stated that he realizes that the plan calls for the formation of a Natural Resources Sustainability Commission and then asked for a brief description of what the business would be before that commission. Ms. Quick returned and replied that they did submit a charter document for a Natural Resources and Sustainability Commission; the idea being that, similar to people coming to the Planning Commission with variance requests; people would come to this new commission for review of things that would impact natural resources. For instance, if they are cutting down trees the commission could advise them on replacements or other plantings; taking the expertise of the residents in helping to meet the goals of being a more sustainable city. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 13 Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that part of setting up that commission would be identifying which decisions need to go through . . . Ms. Quick replied that this would not necessarily be the case. The commission would likely start with the Natural Resources Management Plan, where there would be a whole assessment of what needs to be tackled with the city in priority order. Then there would be a more natural progress to look at what is being done now; for instance, there is an infill project so they would email Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek about maybe considering some different seed grass plantings instead of turf, doing some native plants, etc. where the members of this group would have more familiarity with areas of impact and can advise. Michael Farley, 2281 Ocala Court, has been a resident of Mendota Heights since 1999. He expressed his appreciation to the people who came up with this document; there is a lot of good stuff in it. He took objection and did not agree with the urgency of the problem at hand. He found some of the language inflammatory; for instance, where it reads that ‘climate trends suggest that over the next 50 years we will experience increased precipitation’ is not sourced. Instead of making this an ‘us versus them’ type of document, include descriptions of what ‘extreme weather’ means – does it mean blizzard or 125 degrees. He believed that type of language to be very nebulous and it scared him that this is going someplace that a lot of people in the city do not want it to go. A commission and advisory board would be fabulous – a source of information; however, if governance ability was given to that advisory board then the city would risk the independence of the community and risk having an alternate form of government. Talking about getting things done brings up the topic of funding. There is no place in the document that talks about funding sources, which is another source of concern for people that are more in the fiscal conservative side. This is a fabulous document that includes things the residents could aspire to, everyone wants to be good stewards of the community and the environment, but there needs to be a look at the fiscal side and at the unintended consequences side. Commissioner Magnuson asked staff if the Natural Resources and Sustainability Commission would be much like the Planning Commission, in that they would have no power and would be advisory in nature. They would be a group that would address these issues and study them and then make appropriate recommendations to either the City Council or some other bod y. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied this is something that would need to be determined; ultimately the City Council would make that decision. Mr. Carlson noted that State Statute gives all legal authority in the city to the City Council. Nothing is going to happen in terms of officially adopting plans or spending money without the City Council’s approval of that. The Planning Commission is mentioned in State Statute and one of their duties, as mention in the State Statute, is to recommend a plan for the community, which is exactly what is being done tonight. However, they do not have the authority to adopt it on their own. The City Council can delegate its authority to various commissions and staff, but ultimately everything rests with the City Council. He did not believe that Mendota Heights, or any other city, October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 13 can create a commission that has some governmental power as the power rests with the City Council. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, has been a resident for 30 years. She stated that the Resiliency section is a wonderful thing to put into the Comprehensive Plan and is something that everyone should be aware of. However, one of the things that concerns her is that this is really too lofty for what Mendota Heights can actually achieve. She believes that the city should concentrate on those things that are achievable within the city and not go overboard. There are a number of other agencies that deal with these things; and if they want to be referenced, that would be fine. She did not want the burden of many of these things put on the city except to perhaps educate and support efforts within the community. There are some things that she did not understand; for instance, the food system efforts in Mendota Heights and the second bullet point that refers to farming operations. The Burrows Farm was the last known farm in the city; she asked if they planned on having more farms in the city with the remaining 1% of land available. If they are not going to have farms, why is this language even in there? She found other areas that she did not go into, that may not be completely up-to-date. She also echoed Commissioner Noonan’s comments on this and believes the Commission is on the right track for what can be done and what should be considered for this; keeping in mind that this is important for the future of everyone – not just Mendota Heights. The city and residents need to do their part, but not everything can be done. Tamara Will, 788 Hokah Avenue, expressed her support of both the Natural Resources and the Resiliency chapters. She believed these to be aspirational documents and hoped that there would be tactical plans to support these and a funding source identified. Without a funding source or a staff person in place, these aspirational documents will not go any further than this. They are important and there is urgency. One of the things that could be done to help realize the goals in these sections is the program called Green Steps Cities. They have roadmaps for how to do these things; there are things that lead cities all of the way through this. St. Louis Park, MN is on the forefront of this effort and have some wonderful things going on. There are steps and people to help the city accomplish these goals. As for examples, in 2007 Governor Pawlenty signed the Next Generation Energy Act calling for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and 80% by 2050. This is something that could be adopted in Mendota Heights. She encouraged the city to do that. As far as the question of what could be done since this is a small city, Ms. Will likened it to voting. It is pretty much accepted that each individual vote makes a difference as each vote is combined with other votes. The same thing applies here. The city is a small; however, it is important that each small city and each person does its part in order to combat climate change and preserve our natural resources. Sue Light, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court, stated that as a University of Minnesota Extension Master Gardener she has had the opportunity to work with the city’s Public Works department on several October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 13 sustainable landscape projects. Our natural resources are so important to the quality of life within the city. Sometimes we take for granted that our air quality, water quality, trees, life sustaining plants, and insects would always be here for us. Unless everyone is proactive and has a plan, that might not be true. The Natural Resources chapter is the guide the city can use over the next 20 years. Among other things, the chapter talks about looking for ways to improve habitat for pollinators and other important insects. The city has already started doing this as they plan road reconstruction within the city. When Victoria Road was reconstructed several years ago, native flowers and grasses were seeded instead of rip-wrap or turf grass. In the current road reconstruction, many of the residents have signed on to have rain gardens installed on their properties. These changes not only benefit the pollinators, filter the water, and increase biodiversity; the city does not need to mow as often when these turf alternatives are installed on city property. The plan also talks about using native plant buffers around bodies of water to improve water quality. There are a lot of good sustainable ideas like this in this chapter. They all cannot be done at once; however, the city needs to have aspirational goals for its natural resources. Nature and natural areas are not just in counties, state, or national parks. They are right here in the city and there needs to be a plan to preserve them. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, has been a resident for 44 years. She expressed concerns about the Resiliency section as she believed it goes beyond what Mendota Heights government can and should do. There are some good lofty passages; however, care needs to be taken to ensure they are not conflicting. One thing that she found to be silly was the Food System. The city does not need to dictate what goes into people’s mouths. The city can have a Farmer’s Market and residents can plant a garden; however, she did not believe it belonged in the Comprehensive Plan. She believed what could be done in the Comprehensive Plan was to focus that chapter on preparedness, planning, and perhaps disaster recovery. Some of those actions and concerns could also be included in that section for planning. David Hiner, 1295 Kendon Lane, has lived in the Furlong neighborhood since 1981. He stated that the city needs to have some kind of plan put together as he has had to fight for so many issues in his neighborhood – water and sewer for one. In the meantime, a lot of other things have happened that have been very discouraging. The Lemay Lake Shores property has been built, a road was put through the swamp that has caused all of the runoff and the fertilizer overflowing into Lemay Lake; the lake quality has gone way down every year. Augusta Shores has been built on the other end and a pipe has been installed leading into the swamp, leading into the lake, and has eroded a huge amount of silt into the lake. Requests have been put in to fix this and it has not been done. He questioned the need for a Comprehensive Plan when tax dollars are given more consideration than the environment. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 13 Amelia Vandarious, 1312 Wachtler Avenue, wished to address two points: 1. During the discussion of the Natural Resources and Sustainability Commission, it was definitely discussed as being in an advisory and educational capacity. The purpose of this Commission would be to work on the implementation plan for the Natural Resources and Resiliency chapters; and provide the specific steps that have been requested. 2. In respect to what a small city can do she noted that the city is small, but when other cities view Mendota Heights they can see that every decision made is an opportunity to support natural resources; hopefully leading the way for other cities to make the same type of decisions Alexis Ludwig Vogen, 1580 Boardwalk Court, moved to the city approximately 14 years ago. There were three things that led her and her husband to move to the city:  Location  Schools  The natural resources of the neighborhood They loved the mature trees as they were driving through neighborhoods, loved the proximity to other natural resources like the Mississippi River, and all of the trail systems going through Mendota Heights. They have loved seeing the expansion of that through the years. They look out onto woods from their yard and it is an incredibly part of their living experience in the city. Natural resources, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, is an important part of Mendota Heights. It is what the city delivers that is unique and different from many other neighboring communities that has amazing proximity to St. Paul and Minneapolis, and yet this wonderful hamlet sensibility to it. She expressed her support for a focus on natural resources and having it included in the Comprehensive Plan. In her day job, she works for a large fortune 100 company and leads their environmental sustainability and compliance team. She participated to some extent in this documentation and wanted everyone to understand that she lives in her day job trying to explain wonky terms to people who are unfamiliar with them. She wanted people to not be afraid of some of the terms in the document; there was a pretty practical lens that she tried to apply. She has worked in business longer than in sustainability so there is always a fiscal and a practical lens to the work she does. In terms of urgency she recently learned a fun and interesting fact; the State of Minnesota, since 1970, has warmed in the winter months four degrees. Most people that have grown up here know that because they can feel it. There are impacts in the community, and there will continue to be impacts, of climate change. This is an important aspect to have in the Comprehensive Plan. The city needs to be prepared to think about it as a community and what can be done locally; things that can make a difference. Nissa Tupper, 1696 James Road, was in attendance on behalf of her family and many other community members to support both the Natural Resources and the Resiliency chapters. One of the reasons why she and her family moved here was the appeal of the natural environment that characterizes the community. It is critical to the city’s character, livability, and vitality. It is very October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 13 important that the city proactively care of this. She was excited when she learned that the city was looking for community input on the Natural Resources and Resiliency sections of the plan as it helped her become an active community member. She was fortunate to be part of both chapters and was so impressed by the technical expertise that was at the table and learning what her neighbors do on a day-to-day basis and hear their perspective. The passion they have for the community was impressive. She specifically wanted to acknowledge the importance of approving the resilience chapter. It is something that is new for the city and other communities as well; and something that other communities have been doing for some time. It is not mandatory this planning cycle with the Metropolitan Council, but it was an option. This is something that can help the city stand apart as a community who articulates what they care about, what their goals are, and holds the city accountable. Resiliency is the city’s ability to adapt and bounce back when things do not go as planned. With climate change a lot of things are not going as planned. This is only going to continue. The region is seeing more floods, more extreme heat days, more unhealthy air quality days, more harmful algae blooms, and more bacterial-borne diseases like lime disease. Those are all impacting our environment around us and our health. We need to build a resilience in order to reduce risk to those hazards and to protect the community. The Resiliency chapter may seem overwhelming to some; however, it outlines 20-year goals for climate action, food system, and energy; and are completely in-line with what many other jurisdictions in the Twin Cities Metro Area are already doing. They have been vetted in best practices not only in our region but elsewhere. Some of the items might be new; but they are not lofty and unattainable. They offer the city opportunities to innovate. Some of the items can be started next year. It is good that the Comprehensive Plan also stretches the city and i s guiding the city for the next 20 years. Articulating the goals and planning for them, and being open to new ideas is a good idea. One idea may be to identify strategies for leveraging economic opportunities in a green economy; which would be perfect for a comprehensive plan document. It is a long range plan allowing the city time to unpack some of these things, try to understand what it means for the city, how attainable it is, and coordinate the work. The balance of immediate and long-term strategies is what makes the Resiliency chapter strong. She requested the Planning Commission help the city put the foundation in place so they can build a more resilient community and prioritize it. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road, is one of the master gardeners who has collaborated with the city for the past three years and one of the editors of the Natural Resources chapter. She shared an email earlier about the work that they have accomplished in collaboration with the city. The mission of the U of M Master Gardeners is to use research-based horticultural knowledge and practices to deliver educational outreach and project-based efforts to the community. Specifically, their focus is on sustainable landscape practices that enhance and protect the environment. Th e October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 13 2040 Comprehensive Plan summarizes the area’s abundant and diverse natural resources uniquely special to Mendota Heights very well. Looking beyond the summary, there are 11 goals to cover all of this diverse natural resources. The city is small, yet they have a great number and variety of natural resources which happen to be one of the attributes that can honestly be said that every single resident values. They can describe it differently; however, they range from river bluff to prairie to forested areas, lake, wetlands, rivers, streams, and creeks. Within each of these areas thrives an eco-system of plants, insects, animals that are specific to that area. Unlike other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, there is more to address than these goals. For instance, in Transportation there are roads and maybe they vary a little in the type of road, but they are still a road. In Natural Resources, there are trees; however there are different kinds of trees, trees of different species that are beneficial and provide for humans, birds, and animals; and then there are invasive trees (i.e. buckthorn) that destroy the eco-system. Then there are trees that are different near streams than those trees that are in a prairie or a forested area. There are also shrubs, grasses, flowers, forbs, and soil and water throughout the area. There are many eco-systems within the larger context of Natural Resources so it makes sense that there would be more to guide the city in the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. The city is so unique that Mendota Heights is one of the very few locations left in North America where bee scientists have found the Rusty Patch Bumblebee; a native bumblebee that was common across the U.S. and into Canada but is now on the endangered species list. Very few have been found; but they have been found in Mendota Heights. The Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan has been written as a guide to provide a direction for the city. For example, the plan says in 7.2.7 “Develop and implement city strategies to increase tree canopy. These strategies should explore an expansion of funding and incentives to plant, retain, and promote tree species diversity.” That is a general recommendation to develop a plan for tree planting with an emphasis on diversity, while exploring how it might be funded. In contract, the Natural Resources Landscape Management Plan is a tool that supports the Comprehensive Plan by identifying the current state of each natural resource within the city with the prioritization of specific actions to be taken to prevent further loss or improvement of that resource in a specific area. She encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the Natural Resource section of the Comprehensive Plan with little to no edits. Chadwick Vandarious, 1312 Wachtler Avenue, stated that he has been very impressed by the people who spoke. Normally passion is much more emotional; however, the people who spoke were thoughtful, well researched, and either rehearsed or were the most impressive public speakers he has ever seen. He believed there was an abundance of this resource – people who care. To not put people like this on commission – to waste this resource – is just leaving money on the table. If a commission were created, people just like this would become a part of it and the city would not have to worry about finding something for them to do. These are people are thoughtful and motivated and they will find plenty to do to help make this community better. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 13 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NOVEMBER 27, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN CASE THERE ARE REVISIONS TO THE PLAN AYES; 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field noted that there was mention at the workshop meeting about having another with staff and asked for thoughts from the Commission. Commissioner Noonan felt it would be appropriate given that this is really the first time they have heard input on the Natural Resources and the Resilience sections. Being given the opportunity to go through these sections line-by-line would be appropriate in a work session and give them time to reflect upon what was said and seeing what is put down in writing. There was some strong testimony given with respect to the Resilience section, specifically some pointed concerns about the food system; as well as concerns from the Commission on that same topic. He believed the Commission needed a thoughtful deliberative process which would take place at the work session to allow them to address these sections and take another look at chapters 1-6. Chair Field stated that they have had a workshop as a Planning Commission, a workshop with the City Council, and then he asked City Administrator Mark McNeill if he had any thoughts on having another workshop meeting with the City Council. Mr. McNeill replied that the Council could be available for that; however, they respect the work that the Planning Commission has done and if it is something that the Commission would like to do and then recommend it after the public hearing continuation in November, that would probably work well. Commissioner Noonan commented that the Commission had a good work session on October 15, 2018 where they talked about substantive issues. The challenge now is for the Commission to roll up its sleeves and work through the plan to prepare a product that can be presented to the community for one last set of comments; and ultimately for them to finish their job, which is to recommend something to the City Council. Commissioner Magnuson stated that the Commission has not looked at all at the Critical Area Plan or the Implementation Chapter. If a workshop is scheduled, they should plan on Natural Resources, Resilience, Implementation, and Critical Area. Chair Field suggested that, tomorrow, Mr. Benetti and the Commission look at some dates possibly two weeks before the next Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 for a workshop. He encouraged all of the residents in attendance, and anyone else who wished, to come to the workshop meeting. The date and time would be posted to the city’s website. All should know that this would not be a public hearing but all comments are welcome, minutes would not be recorded; it is a chance for discussion in a public setting their thoughts on things and try to get some work done so when they come to the public hearing in November meeting they are more thoughtful and have worked through some of the issues. October 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 13 Discuss Public Hearing Policy at Planning Commission Meetings Chair Field noted that he read the Public Hearing Guidelines at the beginning of the session this evening. The practice this evening demonstrates, at least to him, what the Commission is trying to do with item #2 “A reasonable attempt shall be made to limit comments to not longer than 3 minutes”. He would prefer to say “An attempt shall be made to keep comments to a reasonable period of time, at the discretion of the chair”. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO EDIT ITEM #2 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING GUIDELINES TO READ “AN ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE TO KEEP COMMENTS TO A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR” AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti informed the Commission that the variance request for ISD #197, Henry Sibley High School, were approved by the City Council. There are two lots split requests that will be heard at the November 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:35 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Planning Report DATE: November 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-25 Lot Split –Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Steve Norton (on behalf of Steven Povolny-Owner) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1925 Victoria Road South ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: December 18, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Steve Norton, acting on behalf of the property owner Steve Povolny, is requesting approval to subdivide a parcel located at 1925 Victoria Road South. This request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. BACKGROUND The original site contains an existing one-story, single family (basement walk-out) dwelling of 1,540-sq. ft., built in 1954. The subject property is a corner lot, 1.07 acres in total size, with 177-ft. of frontage along Victoria Drive and 229-ft. of frontage along Stratford Road (see image below). The existing home was remodeled recently by the owners and will be sold-off separately from the new vacant lot to be created. Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 2 The site is bordered to the north, west and south with similar and existing single-family homes in the R-1 One Family Residential district; and to the east and across the roadway are the Victoria Townhomes and Eagle Ridge apartments, which are located in an R-3 Multiple Family Residential district. The property consists of a portion of Government Lot 4; Section 26-28-23, along with a small strip of Outlot A to the south, which was originally platted as part of the Stratford Woods subdivision. There are a number of mature deciduous and evergreen trees scattered throughout property, and some of these will likely be removed to make space for any future single family dwelling on the new lot. The survey also shows a “shed” located in the back yard area of the home (new vacant lot area), which has since been removed; and the row of bushes along Stratford Road have also been removed, with a number of mature trees were saved or kept on the site. The survey map also shows an existing 3-tier wooden timber retaining wall/landscaping system coming off the back edge (corner) of the existing home, which extends approximately 60-feet out from the house; and this wall system is meant to remain in place (for now). If any new dwelling is constructed on the new lot, provisions will need to be made to remove or reduce these wall features, or the Applicant must provide for some type of private encroachment or joint maintenance agreement between both properties. ANALYSIS  Project Description The applicant proposes to keep the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two single-family lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 08/13/2018 from Lake & Land Surveying, Inc.  Parcel A: the western area of the existing parcel will be subdivided off to create a new 100-ft. by 177-ft. sized lot, consisting of 18,746 sq. ft. or 0.43 acres.  Parcel B: the east side of the existing property will be subdivided to create a new 177-ft. by 129- ft. sized lot, consisting of 27,695 sq. ft. or 0.64 acres. (Note: the survey depicts: “Area = 27,695 SQ. FT. or 1.07 ACRES”. This is not correct). This parcel also contains a 33-ft. wide “roadway easement” in its depiction and legal description, which is located along the easterly boundary with Victoria Road (also known as County Road No. 45). This easement is for the benefit of Dakota County and other public entities and utilities. Eliminating this easement area from proposed Parcel B reduces the usable portion of Parcel B from 27,695 sf. to 22,745 sf. or 0.52 acres.  All new lots to be created under this subdivision will have new perimeter drainage and utility easements dedicated along the front, sides and rear lot lines of each parcel.  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.43 acres and 0.52 acres respectively, makes each new lot consistent with and well below the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. The City’s policies for consideration of development in these areas are noted as follows: o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations. Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 3 o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties. o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors. o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing. o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a “spot-zoning” pattern. o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design.  Zoning Requirements Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below based on the attached survey, the proposed parcels are compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 SF 46,610 sq. ft. (1.07 acres) 18,746 sq. ft. or 0.43 acres 27,695 sq. ft. or 0.64 acres Lot Width 100 ft. 229-ft. / 177-ft. 100-ft. 177-ft. & 129-ft. Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the Code requires the following: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. The existing house will remain on Parcel B. New Parcel A does not depict a new/future house pad location (as some surveys will illustrate). A front yard setback of 30-ft. is normally required in R-1 lots; however, due to this zoning rule in Sect. 12-1D-4-D-2 described above, where a new home is developed between existing homes along an established street, the average of the setbacks between adjoining structures is applied. In this case, a new dwelling structure will need to be setback approx. 45-ft. from the front lot line (ROW line) along Stratford Road (see image below). Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 4 REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) As part of any new building permit application on Parcel B, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored. 2) Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of 45-feet. 3) The Applicant shall make provisions to either remove or reduce the tiered retaining wall system that encroaches across Parcel B into Parcel A; or provide a private encroachment and joint maintenance agreement between both properties, which must be on a recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4) The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Lake & Land Surveying, Inc. dated 08/13/2018; or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 5) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for 1925 Victoria Road South The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Stratford Road. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Stratford Road. Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 6 1925 Victoria Road S. - Looking westerly from Victoria Road Rear of Dwelling – Tiered Wall System Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 7 Side Yard – along Stratford Road (looking westerly) Rear Yard Area – looking southwesterly Planning Report: Case #2018-25 Page 8 Looking southeasterly into rear yard area – from Stratford Road Rear Yard / New Lot Area (looking easterly towards rear of home) 6666666666666 6 66666666 66 66 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 66666666666 6 6 6 6 6 !³ ! """ ³ * * "* ³! * " "³ "" * * "³ ³ ³ ³ ³ " " ! ³ ** ³ ³ * ³³ ³* *""**" * * "³ * *"666 66666666666 6666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 961975 1893 952 1925 964 958 965 1945 959 964 970 976988 978 989 1930 1924 984 1918 1917 1951 983 987 1923 1929 917 1870 18701870 915 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19001900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870986 I-35EVICTORIA RDVICTORIA RD SKAY AVE STRATFORD RD I-35E RAMPMENDOTA RD RAMPCOVENTRY CTI-35E328'305'239'228'283.3'192'189' 159'155'147' 112' 88' 1 0 0 '64'126.3' 59' 355.6'101' 56'51'189'Down 0'Up 0'Down 104'Up 83'Down 145' Up 182' Down 99'Up 205'Down 17'Up 341'Down 0'Up 0'Down 0'Up 0'Down 0'Up 0'Dakota County GIS 1925 Victoria Rd. S.(S. Povolny / S. Norton) LOT SPLIT City ofMendotaHeights0140 SCALE IN FEETDate: 11/19/2018 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Planning Report DATE: November 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-26 Lot Split (Subdivision) & Lot Combination Request APPLICANT: Derek & Julie Cooper PROPERTY ADDRESS: Unaddressed Parcel – located between 555 and 561 Hiawatha Avenue (PID No. 27-17100-03-041) ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: December 18, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Derek and Julie Cooper are requesting approval to subdivide a vacant parcel located between 555 and 561 Hiawatha Avenue. Upon the approval of the split, each adjacent landowner intends to take one-half of the divided lot and combine the parcel with their own property. This request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. BACKGROUND The subject property is an 8,384 sq. ft. (0.19 ac.) vacant lot, located between two existing and developed single-family residential properties. The subject property has a curved front lot line, with approx. 88-feet of street frontage (see Dakota Co. GIS image – below). Planning Report: Case #2018-26 Page 2 The site is bordered to the north, south, east and west with similar and existing single family homes, and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district. The vacant lot has an unusual grade and terrain. The lot maintains a somewhat even or level surface along the westerly edge next to 561 Hiawatha; and then drops off considerably into a severe depression or swale along the easterly edge next to 555 Hiawatha (see Google Street image – below). The 555 Hiawatha residence also has a “winged” shaped retaining wall system on the west side of the home, which leads to a lower, walk out feature and double service door underneath the attached garage. There also appears to be a garden feature in the back of the vacant lot, which staff assumes is being used or cared for by the neighboring homeowners (see photos – end of report). ANALYSIS  Project Description The applicant proposes to keep the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two single-family lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 08/13/2018 from Lake & Land Surveying, Inc.  Parcel A: the western area of the subject property will be subdivided off to create a new 43.6-ft. wide by 109.64-ft. deep parcel, containing 4,192 sq. ft. of area.  Parcel B: the east side of the subject property will be subdivided to create a new 45.9-ft. wide by 90-ft. deep parcel, containing 4,192 sq. ft. of area.  Zoning Information Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. Below is a table that reflects the R-1 District standards and those proposed for each parcel: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000-SQ. FT. 8,384-SQ. FT. (0.19 AC.) 4,192-SQ. FT. 4,192-SQ. FT. Lot Width 100-FT. 89.52-FT. 43.66-FT. 45.86-FT. Planning Report: Case #2018-26 Page 3 As shown in the table above, the proposed parcels would not be compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards. However, the primary reason and stated objective by the Applicant for splitting this vacant lot, is to provide an opportunity to divide this this lot into two equal parts, and sell or transfer each parcel to the adjoining neighbors. For this reason, city staff determined there was no need to process a variance with this subdivision application. Approval of this lot split however, will include a condition that each new parcel created under this split must be added or combined with the immediate neighboring residential properties. Furthermore, any approvals granted under this subdivision request does not create any special or unique circumstances, nor any hardship argument for allowing these parcels to be individually developed with new (separate) single- family dwellings on each lot once the resolution (authorizing the lot split) has been accepted and recorded by Dakota County.  Easements The subject property was originally platted as Lot 4, Block 3, Cherokee Park Heights Addition (1924). The plat does not depict or include any perimeter drainage and utility easements within the lots. Once the new parcels are adjoined or combined with the neighboring properties, there should be no easements that preclude the neighboring properties from building across the old lot lines or encroaching over any public or dedicated easement area. Normally the city requests Applicants to dedicate missing easements when necessary; and the only areas the city can request these easements are along the front, rear and shared (dividing) line between both parcels. The city will request 10-foot wide easements along the front, rear and the shared parcel line. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split application based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split application based on revised or determined findings of fact; OR 3. Table the lot split application, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map prepared by Rehder & Associates (dated July 31, 2018), shall be combined with the property identified as 561 Hiawatha Avenue (PID No. 27-17100-03-040. 2) The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel B” on the attached survey map prepared by Rehder & Associates (dated July 31, 2018), shall be combined with the property identified as 555 Hiawatha Avenue (PID No. 27-57500-02-200). 3) The applicant shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot line boundaries of Parcel A and B; and 10-foot wide (5-feet on each side) easement along the Planning Report: Case #2018-26 Page 4 shared line between Parcel A and B, all on an updated certificate of survey or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4) Since this application for the expressed purpose of subdividing the lot and allowing each adjoining owner to combine the newly created parcels to their own personal properties, any approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship for the Applicant or future owners of these parcels in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on the individual parcels. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for Un-Addressed (Vacant) Parcel located between 555 & 561 HIAWATHA AVENUE The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will be combined with the adjoining /neighboring properties, thereby eliminating the need for a variance for the reduced lot sizes an d lot width standards for R-1 District properties. Planning Report: Case #2018-26 Page 5 LOOKING NW’LY – TOWARDS 561 HIAWATHA (NOTE LEVEL YARD AREA) LOOKING NE’LY – TOWARDS 555 HIAWATHA (NOTE LOWER GRADE/STEEP TERRAIN) Planning Report: Case #2018-26 Page 6 LOOKING TOWARD LOWER WALKOUT ACCESS – 555 HIAWATHA (NOTE THE RETAINING WALLS) LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS BACK OF PARCELS 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 6 6 66666666" ³³ ³ * ! ³ " ³ " ³ ³ "" " ³ " * ! ! * * * " ! * * 6 6 6 66666 6 6666666666 6 6 666666 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 193 181 16250150 1499956014093 9 5 136 90 200 130 155 12912812712684 1251241238 1 80 120270 1106075 74 71 701006561 5655 48 45 4442 40 38 363332 302725242017168 15 7 14 6 11105 4340 50140 55 12012033 4812030 80 70 130 605 0 48120 4032 506130 1504 90 30 8 6 012015025155130 7120 1201 9 3 161205050 50 80 5060120 12030130 130 80 12060 12032 130 12360 1201204015038 566 546 564 568 547 567 537 563 576 549 555 539 573 536 605 562 549 562 556 552 580 543 561 560 551572 542546550554558 536 542 552 544 540 540 556 538 586 531538 530 531 574 HIAWATHA AVE FREMONT AVE GARDEN LNSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY326.8' 278.5'249.4'248.2' 188.8'200.85'125.8'1 1 7 .6 '253.4'351.2' 344.7'107'Down 21'Up 179' Down 186' Up 14' Down 152' Up 48'Down 172'Up 105'Down 127'Up 121'Down 269'Up 8'Down 150'Up 37'Down 109'Up 8'Dakota County GIS LOT SPLIT (Vacant Lot between 555 & 561 Hiawatha Ave.) City ofMendotaHeights090 SCALE IN FEETDate: 11/19/2018 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 666666666666666666666666666666666666³ " ³ " " " * 6 6 6 6 6666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2162 9 5 90150 8 1 1201101251241236160 70 7555 4844 5038 1303332 30 2745 20177 14 6 1190 655 60150 5032 1501203030 546 555 605 561 562 562 556 552 549 568 554558 550 576 563 564 HIAWATHA AV E GARDEN LN 125.8'1 1 7 .6 ' 326.8' 248.2'200.85'D o w n 83' U p 42'Down 107'Up 10'Down 235'Up 12'Down 237'Up 88'Down 109'Up 8'Down 70'Up 47'Dakota County GIS Derek Cooper Lot Split555-561 Hiawatha Ave.City ofMendotaHeights050 SCALE IN FEETDate: 11/20/2018 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 561 HIAWATHA555 HIAWATHA DATE: November 27, 2018 TO: Chair Litton Field and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Allowing Self-Storage Uses in the Commercial and Industrial Districts City staff recently met with a national self-storage facility group, interested in locating or siting a new personal storage business in the community. Commissioners may be aware or noticed that a number of surrounding metro and suburban communities allow or permit these upscale self-storage facilities, which appear to be well-designed; very secure and monitored (w/ on-site staff); and the buildings are usually enclosed with no outdoor or surface storage allowed. City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business districts (B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4); nor the I-Industrial zone. In fact, Section 12-1G-2- 2 provides a list of “prohibited uses” within the Industrial district, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted. The self-storage business requested city staff present some preliminary information for the Planning Commission to review, and are further requesting feedback, comments, support or concerns of allowing self-storage facilities [of this nature] in the city. Attached to this memo are examples of building designs and layouts provided by the business. Depending on the outcome of this feedback, the company’s representatives indicated they may seek and follow-through with a request to amend the City Zoning Code under a separate planning application, which would likely appear before the Commission for official consideration at an early 2019 meeting. Please note this is not an official action item on the agenda. Staff is simply requesting the Commission provide initial feedback or comments related to this proposed use in the city. If you have any questions prior to the meeting; please contact me directly at (651) 255-1142 or email: timb@mendota-heights.com. Thank you. Facilities Standards Branding Elements Image 1 of 3Metallic Silver sign towerwith Extra Space logo signExtra Space channel letter sign - -Place light colored letters on darker walls -Place dark colored letters on lighter wallOffice storefront glazing facing drive-by trafficIlluminated Faux Doors behind glassRoll-up exterior Faux Doors with lighting aboveMetal canopy w/ downlighting Position trees/vegetation sothey do not block branding elementsoffice Facilities Standards Branding Elements Metallic Silver sign tower with Extra Space logo sign Extra Space channel letter sign on side elevation where visible to drive-by trac Oce storefront glazing facing drive-by trac Illuminated Faux Doors behind glass Metal canopy w/ downlighting over oce Low planting material in front of faux doors/ oce glazing Position trees/vegetation so they do not block branding elements Image 2 of 3 Facilities Standards Branding Elements Image 3 of 3 Faux recessed roll-up doorswith downlight aboveExtra Space channel letter sign - -Place light colored letters on darker walls -Place dark colored letters on lighter wallIlluminated Faux Doors behind glass Position trees and vegetation so they do not block branding elements oce Extra Space Storage EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, Inc. CORPORATE OFFICE 2795 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 400Salt Lake City, Utah 84121801.365.4533COPYRIGHT WARNING: All drawings that originate from Extra Space Storage are copyrighted by Federal Copyright Law. No part of these drawings may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including drawing and/or photocopying without the written authorization of Extra Space Storage. These drawings cannot be used in any manor to create new, modified, or derivative drawings without the written authorization of Extra Space Storage. Any violation constitutes infringement, which is subject to civil and criminal penalties as prescribed by law.LOADINGKeep trees/vegatation from blockingkey branding elements such as doorsand signagePaint building to help it “Pop”Rebranding an existing facilityAdd faux doors toidentify “What” we areSign to be located for maximumvisibility to advertise “Who”we areAdd down lighting over faux doors for night timevisibilityIdentify customer loadingareas and flood area withlightingConfirm signs illuminateat nightBeforeBeforeBeforeBeforeOffices to clearly communicate “Where” the customer transactsbusinessIdentifiable office elements such as “OFFICE” sign, overheadcanopies and abundant lightingSign to contrast with wallbackgroundOFFICE Vers. 11/27.18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC HEARING GUIDELINES The purpose of the Public Hearing is to obtain comments from the general public regarding specific subject matters on the planning commission agenda. Participants who plan to testify are encouraged to abide by the following guidelines:  Comments shall be limited to the proposed plan or amendment;  Comments shall not be used for personal or derogatory attacks against the applicants, planning commissioners, city staff, or members of the public who speak for or against an agenda item;  Comments shall be limited to a reasonable period of time and shall not be repetitious until everyone else wishing to provide comments has testified;  The applicant shall be allowed to speak last to address any questions or comments from the public or the Commission;  The Chair can amend these procedures if necessary; and  All are welcome to speak and participate in the hearing process. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and participation.